Skip to comments.Shale Gas: Global game changer (and why some will block it)
Posted on 02/10/2011 2:10:44 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Ten years ago, few crystal balls foresaw the lightning impact and development of shale gas on the worlds energy scene. In the last 10 years during which shale gas became commercial in the US its use has grown from near zero to about 20% of the already enormous US gas stream. Booked shale gas reserves, at present rates of production, may still be onstream 100 years into the future, a figure that will increase if gas begins to approach oil on a price parity basis.
Many likely changes will result from shale gas development. But the most important ones reflect the economic impact of shale gas on global politics and todays energy producers.
.....The distribution of shale gas is so widespread that locally produced shale gas may become the standard fuel in many places. Traditional gas imports (by pipeline or as LNG) may become incremental sources.
The potential of shale gas implies a loss of political leverage for some sellers. For example, Russia has used threats of interruptions and actual interruptions like old-time gunboats, notably with Ukraine, but with other European countries too.
... The Poles share with other Europeans concerns about fracking, water recycling, and environmental issues. They have no tradition of American-style entrepreneurship. What they do have is reliance on Russias Gazprom in a power-constrained economy. They want to accelerate the development of their shale gas reserves. This story is repeated many places.
....Because shale gas can be distributed through existing gas facilities, it can decrease the urgency with which some countries pursue solar and wind projects. But these renewables have been supported by global warming concerns and benefited from deliberately high subsidies. So a commitment to renewables is likely to remain even if gas availability is explored and ultimately adopted.
(Excerpt) Read more at pennenergy.com ...
[excerpt] And here, as Bishop Hill has also noted, are some of the expert from this mornings shale gas inquiry.
Who will give evidence?
At 9.45 am
* Nigel Smith, Geologist, British Geological Survey, and
* Professor Richard Selley, Petroleum Geologist, Imperial College London
At 10.45 am
* Jenny Banks, Energy and Climate Change Policy Officer, WWF, and
* Professor Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester
Yep. A geologist and a petroleum geologist. Fair enough. But Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre the deep green activist group which recently called for a managed recession in order to curb the economic growth which is supposedly harming our environment? And a woman from the World Worldlife Fund? [end excerpt]
[excerpt] HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE:EPD) today announced several new construction projects that will further extend and expand its natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL) infrastructure in South Texas and Mont Belvieu, Texas to accommodate growing production volumes from the Eagle Ford Shale play. As part of the initiative, Enterprise plans to install 350 miles of pipelines, build a new natural gas processing facility, and add a new NGL fractionator at the Mont Belvieu complex near the Houston Ship Channel. In addition, the partnership recently completed several key, previously announced projects, including the initial 34-mile segment of the east-west rich gas Eagle Ford mainline and the final leg of the 62-mile White Kitchen Lateral. As a result, Enterprise soon will be able to fill the existing 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of capacity at its seven South Texas natural gas processing facilities.
Included in the planned construction, is an expansion of Enterprises east-west rich gas mainline that will involve adding three additional pipeline segments totaling 168 miles. The first phase will involve the installation of 26 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline extending the mainline to the far western reaches of the Eagle Ford Shale. The remaining 142 miles, to be built in two segments, will be comprised of 30-inch and 36-inch diameter pipelines that will serve the eastern portion of the Eagle Ford Shale. Upon completion, the Eagle Ford Shale rich gas mainline system and associated laterals will consist of approximately 300 miles of pipelines representing gathering and transportation capacity of more than 600 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d).
The east end of Eagle Ford mainline will terminate at a new natural gas complex Enterprise plans to build that will feature multiple processing trains designed for deep ethane recovery and production of mixed NGLs in excess of 60,000 barrels per day (BPD). Following completion of these projects, which is expected in early 2012, Enterprises Texas assets will have the capability to gather, transport and process almost 2.5 Bcf/d of natural gas and produce more than 150,000 BPD of NGLs.
Takeaway capacity for residue gas from the new processing facility will be provided by a combination of existing Enterprise infrastructure and construction of additional natural gas pipelines. Specifically, Enterprise is planning to construct a new 64-mile, 30-inch diameter residue gas line from the cryogenic facility to its Wilson natural gas storage facility in Wharton County, Texas. Wilson offers access to major interstate pipelines, including Trunkline, Tennessee Gas, Transco, NGPL, Gulf South and Texas Eastern. An expansion project to increase capacity at the storage facility by 5 billion cubic feet is currently under way.
Transportation of mixed NGLs from the new processing facility to the Mont Belvieu complex will be accomplished by expanding Enterprises infrastructure, highlighted by the planned construction of a new 127-mile, 12-inch diameter pipeline. The new NGL pipeline will have an initial capacity of more than 60,000 BPD, readily expandable to over 120,000 BPD. The project is scheduled for completion early in 2012. [end excerpt]
A search crew found the body of Richard Shaw at about 6:30 p.m., said Rick Rainey, a spokesman for Enterprise Products. An accident at noon Tuesday at the Mont Belvieu company produced a towering fireball that burned for hours before diminishing as the sun set......Chambers County emergency management coordinator Ryan Holzaepfel said he was told by officials at the plant when he arrived Tuesday the cause of the explosion likely was a failed pump in an above-ground pipe rack area.
In addition to trained Enterprise staff, workers from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Railroad Commission, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency responded to the incident, Rainey said. [end excerpt]
I’ve heard the argument that while American’s cannot compete with the extremely low labor costs in other parts of the world we have geat potential with having cheap energy that we could be so much more economically competitive.
Yet our government blocks the development of our known
"The ruling highlights the disparity between President Obama's stated policy objectives -- to grow jobs and promote American energy independence -- and his actions, which instead deliver higher unemployment, higher fuel prices and greater dependency on foreign energy sources. This ruling demonstrates the President is more interested in shutting down our domestic oil and gas production than he is in establishing clear rules to enhance safety and environmental protection. President Obama's policies are destroying American jobs and exporting American technology to countries that value safe offshore energy production," said Jim Adams, president and CEO of the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA).....
The Oil Embargo did not significantly decrease the amount of oil available in the United States or any affected European countries due mainly to a lack of solidarity and uniformity in embargoing specific countries. The embargo was effectively ended on September 1 with the issuance of the Khartoum Resolution. [end excerpt]
On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter outlined his plans to reduce oil imports and improve energy efficiency in his "Crisis of Confidence" speech (sometimes known as the "malaise" speech). It is often said that during the speech, Carter wore a cardigan (he actually wore a blue suit) and encouraged citizens to do what they could to reduce their use of energy. He had already installed solar power panels on the roof of the White House and a wood-burning stove in the living quarters. However, the panels were removed in 1986, reportedly for roof maintenance, during the administration of his successor, Ronald Reagan, and were never replaced.
Carter's speech argued the oil crisis was "the moral equivalent of war". Several months later, in January 1980, Carter issued the Carter Doctrine, which declared that any interference with U.S. oil interests in the Persian Gulf would be considered an attack on the vital interests of the United States. Additionally, as part of his administration's efforts at deregulation, Carter proposed removing price controls that had been imposed in the administration of Richard Nixon before the 1973 crisis. Carter agreed to remove price controls in phases; they were finally dismantled in 1981 under Reagan. Carter also said he would impose a windfall profit tax on oil companies. While the regulated price of domestic oil was kept to $6 a barrel, the world market price was $30.
In 1980, the U.S. Government established the Synthetic Fuels Corporation to produce an alternative to imported fossil fuels. [end exceprt]
The White House declined to comment on the reports Wednesday, saying that the administration did not divulge what other leaders said to Obama.
However, it later said that Obama had discussed Egypt during a phone call with King Abdullah on Wednesday, saying the U.S. leader stressed the need for a meaningful and lasting political transition.
The news came as testimony gathered by the Guardian newspaper claimed that the Egyptian military, despite maintaining an appearance of neutrality in the ongoing crisis, had secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests began weeks ago.
Egyptians continued to demonstrate across the country Wednesday in a 16th day of protests against longtime leader Mubarak despite warnings of a crackdown by the regime if the continued uprising creates chaos.
Obama's most senior national security aides also met with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Wednesday to discuss the situation in Egypt. [end excerpt]
running to the post office for RR stamps today...bump
To Cincinatus’ Wife
OOPS about my previous #11 post.
Hadn’t gotten my coffee yet!!!
Shale Gas: Global game changer (and why some will block it)
Obama, The Sierra Club and other fellow travelers will do all they can to
defeat American self-sufficiency in energy.
And that includes building enough nuclear plants to power all the
new electric/hybrid cars like the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt.
Freedom for the masses just doesn’t fit in with program for Obama and
his fellow travelers.
These cats are all about making every “citizen” a dependent on the
ever-expanding federal bureacracy.
[excerpt] Oklahoma U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe promotes global warming skepticism and his book at House hearing
Republicans aiming to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.
......The concern of Republicans, who now control the House, is that the EPA is setting out to curb carbon emissions through a series of regulations, both for vehicles and stationary sources, such as power plants.
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave the EPA the authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA took a major step toward that regulation with a finding that carbon, like the pollutants already regulated, poses a danger to human health.
Inhofe and two House Republicans, including the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, have drafted legislation that would effectively bar the EPA from issuing regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, said regulations would raise energy prices and kill jobs.
But Democrats on the panel and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson countered that the U.S. economy boomed in the 1990s after more stringent Clean Air Act amendments were approved.
The history of the Clean Air Act shows, Jackson said, that our economy can grow and thrive while we reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency.
Republicans invited representatives from several industries to testify about the harm EPA regulations would do. Jackson said agriculture wouldn’t be affected, but a witness for the American Farm Bureau Federation countered in written testimony that farmers and ranchers would be affected by anyway by increased energy costs.
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, a member of the subcommittee, said in his statement that compliance costs would trickle down to the farming and ranching community, resulting in higher costs of production and food costs for American families, exactly what we don’t need in a struggling economy. [end excerpt]
Thanks for these posts. However, you left out the 1973 oil crisis
Wonderful montage. Thanks. I’m saving the URL for this thread for future reference.
Congressional Republicans choose to just ignore science and attack the EPA. [excerpt] So what about the EPAs new greenhouse gas rules that were being discussed at the hearing? The basic story is fairly simple. Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if the agency found that those gases pose a threat to public health and welfare (which, most scientists agree, they do). As it turns out, even George W. Bushs EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, conceded that the agency would have to start regulating carbon-dioxide. And, under Obama, the EPA has been putting forward new rules to control pollution from cars and stationary sources. (Here's a full primer on the topic.)
Republicans, for their part, are trying to argue that these regulations will crush the U.S. economy. At Wednesday's hearing, they invited Steve Rowlan, a representative from Nucora major U.S. steel producerto explain how his company had to build a $750 million plant in Louisiana instead of a $2 billion one because of the uncertainty created by these regulations. Likewise, Jim Pearce, an official from soda-ash manufacturer FMC Corp., warned that new pollution controls could drive businesses offshore.
All these examples may be true (and certainly there's room to quibble with the EPA's new study suggesting that forthcoming clean-air regulations will actually create jobs). But, then again, no one suggests that these carbon rules are freecompanies will have to spend money on pollution controls and efficiency upgrades. The environmentalist argument is that the benefits outweigh the costs. And that's something Republicans would rather not confront head-on. At one point, Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky informed EPA head Lisa Jackson that her agencys new fuel economy standards would add $948 to the cost of a car by 2016. But thats only a decisive argument against if you ignore the fact that the rules will save consumers far more than that amount in gas coststo say nothing of whatever clean-air benefits ensue. (All told, EPA estimates the benefits at $240 billion.)
That brings us to the nub of the debate. If you dont believe climate change is a problem, then most of these new carbon rules are pointless. And, within the Republican Party, the belief that global warming is a made-up non-problem has become thoroughly ingrainedso much so that its no longer even worth justifying. [end excerpt]
I'm happy to say it looks like the GOP isn't just going to "ignore nature" or just yawn in the face of the EPA and warmists.
As Gen George Patton famously put it to the troops "....."I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"
“Why some will block it”???!!!!
Let’s see, they block oil they block gas they block coal they block Nuke they block wood burning stoves. WHY THE HELL WOULDN’T THEY BLOCK SHALE GAS? Geeze!
This one they really fear because (as mentioned in the body of the post) shale gas is available to many countries within their own border — and thus cheap, accessible and in your face to the green movement.
Energy is utterly vital to civilization and informing people is key on all these issues. The General Patton quote, with a few slight re-wordings, should be our un-official mission statement dealing with the liars and hypocrites who are in the business of mis-/mal-informing the public. And who make our work saving minds so challenging to boot. Thanks again.
Wow, thank for all this information!
It’s a morning wake up call.
The greens fear the shale fields. Some like Eagle Ford produce gas and oil, some like the Bakken are great oil producers. However, the drillers use a process called fracing to break up the deposits and make them manageable. The greens want to stop that process. However, there are companies, Ecosphere Technologies for one, that seem to be able to provide the technology that will make that argument moot. In any case, the greens will never stop.
...The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the necessary tools to protect our families from a number of harmful pullutants that can cause asthma and lung disease especially in children. Weakening these standards would allow more pollution in the air we breathe and threaten our childrens health. We thought it might be helpful to refresh everyone on how this landmark law affects our country and protects our health.
* 160,000 Lives Saved Last Year - In the year 2010 alone, clean air regulations are estimated to have saved over 160,000 lives.
* More than 100,000 Hospital Visits Avoided Last Year - In 2010, clean air standards prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems, including bronchitis and asthma. It enhanced productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays, and kept kids healthy and in school, avoiding millions of lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution.
* 60% Less Pollution in Our Air, Strong Economic Growth and Lower Electricity Prices - Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants that cause smog and particulate pollution by more than 60%. At the same time the economy more than tripled. And Since the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, electricity production is up and prices are down. In 2009, electric utilities delivered 33 percent more electricity to U.S. households and businesses than in 1990, while nationwide electricity prices were 10 percent lower.
* Benefits Far Out Weigh Costs - Over its forty-year span, the benefits of the Clean Air Act in the form of longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1. [end excerpt]
John Holdren has advocated for population control, de-development of the U.S., and recently told a gathering of U.S. science graduate students, the the U.S. can't expect to be number in everything indefinitely. He feels other countries will benefit from us resetting our economy.
Chinese product to Europe would have the much longer voyage if the Suez was not available, yet they could benefit from the energy prices since oil from the M.E. would find its shortest route to China rather than Europe.
OTOH, the shortest trade routes for energy and products for Europe would be the Western Hemisphere.
Syria and Iraq could also benefit mightily if the Suez were to be expected to be out of commission for a significant period of time since it could green-light the underwriting aspect of massive pipelines from the oil fields in Iraq, through neighboring Syria to the Med.
USSR Russia could get highly P.O'd about this since it would diminish the threat of cutting off gas supplies to Europe.
“Obama, The Sierra Club and other fellow travelers will do all they can to defeat American self-sufficiency in energy.”
I strongly disagree. Obama and other such as the Sierra Club do want America to be self-sufficient in energy. The problem is, they want to achieve self-sufficiency by ratcheting down our energy consumption to the levels that can be provided by solar, wind, etc. IOW, about 10% of what we currently use.
I strongly disagree. Obama and others want to block access to current energy sources and drive up their costs, so green energy looks less costly.
Not just hydrocarbons, either. Do a search on "thorium"
I back off my “strongly disagree.” I think you are correct and so am I.
Limit consumption ie smart meters, rolling black-outs, high taxes, penalties, EPA, etc.
Limit access to current energy sources, seal off land, prohibit mining and drilling, EPA, high taxes, penalties on businesses and use, etc.
It would be real nice if someone brought up the Nazi roots of the World Wildlife Fund.
Most of the leadership of the eco-fascist cults are neo-Nazis, with a deep hatred for ordinary people, an embrace of various kook theories and a dislike of rationality.
The coming GOP majority MUST be encouraged to aggresesively allow us to drill for oil, extract shale gas, built nuclear powerplants and built oil refineries.
The socialists had their heyday under Obama. We have to place great pressure on the coming GOP majority to ignore the environmental whack jobs and to exploit our own energy.
Man, there are so many things we need to demand from the coming GOP majority. So many things.
Leftists will squeeze every drop of blood from a correlation vs causation scenario. They need to do this because economies work in spite of their schemes, not because of them.
No Coal, No Power, No Gas (Texas)
By Jeffrey Folks, American Thinker February 11, 2011
Let’s see if I get this straight. During the early February cold spell in the southern plains, when wind chills in Dallas dipped to minus twenty degrees, Texans were going without power to heat their homes and businesses even as the state was sitting on massive surpluses of natural gas. Even hospitals were having to switch to emergency generating systems. And this in the state with the largest energy production capacity in the continental US.
How was it that Texas suffered an extended period of rolling blackouts at a time when there’s a glut of coal and natural gas waiting to be used?
The answer may be quite simple. It seems that a great deal of natural gas got “stuck in the pipes” because there was not enough electricity to operate the pumps to move it along. And there was not enough electricity to operate the pumps because environmentalists had seen to it that plans for new coal-powered generating plants had been shuttered back in 2007. So without the coal, there was no electricity, and without the electricity, there was no natural gas. And since much of the natural gas was intended to supply electrical power generating plants, there was even less electricity to supply the pumps and everything else.
The Texas power blackouts affected millions of homeowners and businesses, as well as vital services such as hospitals, schools, and police and fire services. An extended loss of power during periods of extreme temperatures endangers everyone. It cuts off emergency responders from those in need, and it leaves citizens freezing in their homes. The loss of power reduces modern society to an anarchic level where each is left to fend for himself.
Unfortunately, environmentalists in Texas who blocked the construction of coal-powered plants and shut down others during the last decade did not consider these consequences. All that they thought of was that coal is “dirty,” so coal must go. They did not consider what would take its place. Had the coal generating facilities that were planned a decade ago by Texas Power been in place, the rolling blackouts of 2011 might well have been avoided.
As it happened, plans for construction of eight large coal-powered plants were scrapped in 2007 in a private equity deal crafted by the environmental action group, Environmental Defense. Under the agreement, TXU, the Texas power company, agreed to discontinue plans for eight Texas plants, halt construction of coal-powered plants in other states, reduce its carbon footprint to 1990 levels, and endorse the US Climate Action Partnership agenda. This radical transformation of TXU contributed to regulatory approval for takeover of the company by private equity group KKR (Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts).
It is ironic, considering the freezing temperatures that Texans endured during the first week of February, that an agreement to discontinue construction of coal-powered plants was predicated on the now discredited theory of man-made global warming. In order to lower global temperatures, as they imagined, environmentalists pressured TXU to accept a plan that made it impossible for the citizens of Texas to heat their homes.
Can there be any doubt that the agreement to discontinue eight large power plants was a contributing factor in the rolling blackouts of February 2011? The generating capacity supplied by these plants would not have been dependent on the pumping of natural gas. It would have continued to heat homes and businesses, and to power emergency services, throughout the storm. Instead, the state was left depending on an inherently less reliable mix of power sources.
The Texas blackouts are a foretaste of what the rest of the country can expect, given the concerted effort of the Obama administration to shut down coal generating plants and to place obstacles in the way of coal mining. Just weeks ago, the EPA revoked the permit for Arch Coal’s Spruce Number One mine in Virginia, one of the largest coal mining projects in the country. For the past two years, in fact, the EPA has pursued a hyper-aggressive program of enforcement that seems intended to price coal electrical generation out of the market. As in Texas, plans for new coal power plants have been scrubbed. They have been replaced by plants powered by natural gas, and by heavily subsidized wind and solar generation.
The problem is that natural gas plants have not come on line quickly enough to replace the coal generation that has been lost, and wind and solar, which make up only 1% of power generation anyway, are inherently unreliable. The wind does not blow all the time, nor does the sun shine at night. Had the US retained its reliable base of coal power generation, there would be less danger of further blackouts. As it is, much of the country is in danger of experiencing outages similar to those in Texas.
Ironically, the US is in danger of power blackouts at a time when it is exporting greater and greater amount of coal to China and other countries. Already, America is sending 80 million tons of coal overseas, but plans are underway to increase exports by 10% in 2011. Countries overseas understand that coal is the cheapest and most reliable form of energy available for producing electrical power. At a time when America is curtailing its coal generating capacity, China and India are building one new coal generating plant every week. And America is shipping its vital resources overseas even as its citizens are left, quite literally, out in the cold.
Jeffrey Folks is author of many books and articles on American culture and politics.